HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL (Hansard, 29 January 1964)

§ Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highways. Danger to life and limb is becoming more and more intense from day to day on our roads. Last Friday, the House discussed some of the tragic consequences of failure to cope adequately with the problem, and the necessity of devising ways and means of safety for road users as far as is humanly possible. It is estimated that, in the not-too-distant future, the number of cars on the roads will exceed the number of men, women and children now living in the country.

Whatever may be pleaded for failure, owing to oversight or miscalculation, unacceptable though it may be, to make the necessary provision for coping with the vast increase of road traffic, no excuse whatever is available or permissible for those who have failed, and still fail, to heed conclusions arrived at by so eminent and responsible a committee as that set up to consider the law of civil liability for damage done by animals, and to make recommendations. The chairman of the committee was the Lord Chief Justice of England, and I believe that the other members were also distinguished lawyers. It is now 11 years since that committee reported, and made its recommendations. So far, the recommendations in respect of the matter of which I am now speaking, have been ignored.

Strictures by many learned judges, such as Lord Donovan, have so far fallen on deaf ears. The House will remember that in the case of Ellis v. Johnson, reported in The Times on 4th December, 1962, Lord Donovan, who is well known to us in this House, and who was a Member for a considerable time, said: There have been previous judicial pleas for Parliament to look at the law relating to animals. Government time is understandably very crowded, but a Private Member's success in the Ballot would perform a public service if he could introduce a Bill to regulate liability for damage by animals. 376 Lord Donovan added that the heart of the new legislation which was required could be found in the report of the Lord Chancellor's Committee, published in 1952.

As far as back as 1961, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) endeavoured to get the House to pass a Bill to cope with the situation, but his highly commendable Measure was frustrated by failure of Government support. Meanwhile, justification for the immediate change in our law is evidenced by the constant and unnecessary killing and maiming of human beings and cattle.

The Bill that I am applying for leave to introduce is intended to provide for payment of compensation to the injured persons or relatives of the persons killed in accidents in which straying cattle were involved. This will, undoubtedly, act as deterrent, and impose caution and care upon the owners of fields or cattle—

§ Sir B. Janner

I am talking about the horse, the pony, cows and cattle.

As the law now stands, the owners of straying cattle that have caused these calamities are not liable to pay compensation to the victims of their lack of consideration for the safety of others. Gates in fields containing cattle can be left open, and the boundaries of those fields left unfenced, without the owner being liable for any damage which cattle straying from those fields cause when they stray on the highways. This applies if a moving vehicle collides with such cattle, causing destruction of life and limb to hapless drivers or passengers.

It is only in the event of the owner of domestic animals, such as horses, ponies, cattle or sheep, deliberately bringing the animal on to the highway or bringing an animal which is known by him to be vicious that he may be compelled to pay compensation to a person for damages caused by such an animal on a highway.

The Report to which I have referred—the Committee on the Law of Civil Liability for Damage done by Animals—states, under the heading, "Duty to Prevent Escape": Dealing, first, with escape on to the highway, a series of decisions have established 377 beyond question that the common law imposes no duty on the owner or occupier of land adjoining the highway to prevent animals escaping from it on to the highway. In thus stating the law in Brackenborough v. Spalding U.D.C., Lord Wright described the rule as modern and its limits as still uncertain: In other words, it applies at the present time. It was reluctantly applied by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v. Williams, where Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls, said: 'The rule appears to be ill adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the twentieth century.' I quote further: The rule was, however, subsequently and emphatically affirmed by the House of Lords in Searle v. Wallbank: 'On any view we think it desirable that the rule should be modified to meet modern conditions of traffic where a road runs through enclosed country. It is remarkable that, whereas Section 25 of the Highway Act. 1864, imposes a penalty on the owner of cattle "found straying on or lying about any highway or across any part thereof or by the sides thereof except in such parts of any highway as pass over any common or waste or unenclosed land", the law gives no remedy to a person who is injured as a consequence. As already stated, we think liability should depend on negligence, and accordingly recommend that an occupier should be under a duty to take reasonable care that cattle or poultry lawfully on land in his occupation do not escape therefrom on to the highway, and that the occupier should be responsible for all damage caused to persons or chattels (damage to realty being already covered by the action of cattle trespass) by cattle or poultry which escape owing to a breach of that duty whether or not acting in accordance with their ordinary nature;' This is not the time to go into the differences between animals vicious by nature and animals of a domestic nature, but I am sure that hon. Members know the difference and how they are dealt with.

As I related to the House when I was given leave to introduce a similar Bill, I was deeply distressed when I heard from Mr. and Mrs. Woodword, of Houghton-on-the-Hill, Leicester, that their only child had been killed by straying horses. She was a young woman of 23 and was engaged in the important, humane work of teaching backward children. The House can imagine the anguish which befell these stricken parents. They were, and are, determined 378 to devote their lives—they have told me so—to preventing as far as they can experiences of so heartbreaking a character befalling other people.

I have received numerous messages from organisations such as the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Industries Association Ltd., and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and from individuals, deploring the lack of a provision for compensation and giving a very large number of examples of serious injuries which have been sustained in accidents where the victims have had no possibility of returning to their normal work. For example, one communication reads: The village 'Bobby' of Alnmouth, Northumberland, was gravely injured ten weeks ago when his motor cycle struck a stray lamb. P.C. William Rumbold, the 'Bobby', suffered a broken jaw, broken arm and fractured skull and lay critically ill for weeks in Newcastle General Hospital. He is improving but still not fully conscious, and is paralysed down his right side. Numerous other examples have been sent to me which I could give to the House. In my own constituency alone, in a very short time about 90 people have signed a petition which calls upon the Government to deal with this matter, and in the district within 20 or 30 miles radius of Leicester over 600 people have signed a similar petition. The House can well imagine what would be the position if an attempt were made throughout the country to get people to sign a petition of this nature. I am sure that it would be a vast petition. What has happened in North-West Leicester and the surrounding districts in the agitation of the people is undoubtedly happening in other parts of the country.